And just to show an example : Lev you say that computer against human is unfair, but lets imagine a match of 6 games computer against computer for example in the well-known Nadjorf variation of the sicilian defense. This is not a chicken variation by white or black, but an human should know the theory very good before using it against another human. Ok let's imagine that the computer have 2 win 2 draw and 2 lost. We could say that the Najdorf offer equality no?

Lets imagine a new match between computer against but this time with the Zilbermints gambit in the euwe defense and here, the computer do 5 win and one draw with Blacks, what is the conclusion of that match : Does the Zilbermints gambit offer equality? Or the defeat is about forced?

I know that somes people would think that this example is stupid or a bit exagerated but it was just to show something. The big difference between for example the Zilbermints gambit and the Najdorf, is the number of games at high level or at CC level. Normally you can trust analysis by human player in the Najdorf because it has been played so much and at the best level, so, even if you wanna find a "refutation" with a computer you won't. With the Zilbermints gambit it's different, it seems actually that White are in trouble with actual analysis and it's harder to trust the few analysis on it actually. My actual opinion of the Zilbermints gambit with the best play from both side is -/+ but maybe in the future somes improvements resisting to the analysis even done by a computer will allow to play it to reach equality. And I would say that a machine against an human in a CC game would not necessary win, if the human check accurately the tactics, his superiority in strategy and knowledge will give him an advantage.
I think most players in a CC game do the most of the works but before playing their move they just check with computer if he did not miss a tactical point just to gain somes times or it could take mores days before playing.

Quote:


  Actually, it seems no matter what I say, you quickly run to your precious computer for answers. Computer, please analyse this. Computer, please check out that.
Yuck! Phew!! How about using your own head instead of that bunch of circuits and electronics? How about using that computer, if you so do, to find improvements for WHITE, instead of criticizing the gambit?? Oh no, you do not do that... The computer will provide the answers... like the various holy books (Bible, Koran, Torah) provide answers to different religions.

I got news for you: to err is human.  Maybe that is why I consider it idiotic that humans play against computers -- the match-up is not fair. The computer has too much information in its database, and plays perfectly or nearly so. Thus, the human player is at a disadvantage. After all, the human does not have a database handy when playing against a computer.

  The great beautiful correspondence games of the past were played without computers, man against man, one city against another. The players had to do their own analyses.  Now... oh, run to the computer! Please, analyze, Mr. Computer!! Yuck! Phew! Is it any surprise that the computer in effect plays the games these days?
That is what I openly dislike: People depending on computers for answers.

   Regardless of what is said here by anyone, I will publish my book on the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG. In fact, I already have published two articles on this.  I will not let a bunch of electronic circuits take the fun out of chess. And I will uphold the great romantic tradtion of the 19th century and earlier, 
when attack, combination, manhood and courage were the order of the day.  I will see to it that these qualities continue in the 21st century and beyond.

  You want worship the computer as THE chess expert, go ahead. Not I.  You want to see *perfect* games, without errors? Go ahead, please the computer. Not I.
In chess, errors are what cause the win for one side or another. Sometimes the errors lead to a draw.

  Finally, here is a game that was played in a tournament. 

  Zilbermints - Anthony Russo
  Tuesday Game/ 90 minutes 
  31 May 2005
  Marshall Chess Club, NY

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Nxf3 10 Qxf3

The Exchange Sub-Variation

10...Bd7 11 Rad1 h6  12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Ne4 Qe7  14 Nxf6 gf6 15 Qxb7!

It is necessary to keep Queens on board. After 15 Qf6 Qf6 16 Rf6 Ke7 17 Raf1 Rae8 =+, Black is better.

15...00  16 Qe4 f5  17 Rxf5! f6  18 Bc4 Rae8  19 Rh5 Qg7
20 Qe3 c6  21 Bxe6+  This move is risky but playable.

21...Kh7  22 Bf5+ Kg8 23 Qb3+ Kh8?

Better is 23...Rf7!  24 Qh3 Re2 25 Rg1 Rfe7 =

24 Qh3 Kg8  25 Rh4   

Here 25 Rxh6! wins a pawn after 25...Re3! 26 Rg6!

25...Re2?

25...Re3!  26 Rg4!

26 Rg4! Bxg2+  27 Rxg2  Rxg2 28 Qxg2 Re8  29 Qxg7
Kxg7  30 Rd7+  Kf8  31 Rxc7  Re2  32 Rxa7  Rf2  33 Bd3  Rf4  34 a4, BLACK RESIGNS. 1- 0.

Quote:


Lev, read your post from 6/28.  You give the analysis
"1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6  6 Bg5 Be7  7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c6  10 Nxd4 Qxd4  11 Bxf6  Bxf6  12 Ne4 Be7  13 Qh5! g6 14 Qh6+ [sic] Bd715 Rad1 f5  16 Ng3  Bf8  17 Qg5  Qg7  18 Bc4  h6  19 Qe3 += "
 
Let's pretend Black is also trying to win, then instead 18....Qh6 trades queens.  It couldn't be simpler or more obvious.  Sure there are earlier deviations, and I trust you will eventually read ArKheiN's post.  The point is this: your own analysis ignores Black's most basic strategic goals.  Either provide improvements or accept that your mainline leads to a lost position for White.  If you're happy to play a variation in which you believe best play leads to a loss for white, that's fine, enjoy, just make that clear to the rest of us.

As for the 11.Qe1 lines, I will wait for an improvement on the analysis of Leisebein posted by ArKheiN.  It's unclear to me why you have suddenly gone from considering Qe1 to be the blunder to blaming White's twelfth move.  What variation prompted you to reconsider 11.Qe1?

Quote:

So you believe he should continue to play a variation that he convinced loses? (well, I suppose that would be brave ... and stupid)
Basically you offer a lot of wordy arguments about manhood and bravery instead of decent analysis (after all, to not have it riddled with mistakes it would have to be checked with the computer and that would be unfair).

Quote:


I agree that Leisebein did good analysis, but his favourite way to continue was 11.Qe1 

and you said recently : Quote:


about a game played. So you contredict yourself because you give ?? to 11.Qe1.

Secondly, and I repeat it again, Leisebein who played it on CC would give something like ?! to your gambit, prefering 8.a3 now. (Ok he got good results but like I said before, he found the best way for black to continue giving -/+ in his analysis and it's for that he is prefering 8.a3 now.)

This is a very interesting argument. I can't say I agree with you win it comes to your support of the BDG Lev, but only because OTB it isn't that scary to face. It just isn't. If black uses his head, he should have a good advantage.

Even though here I disagree with you--I most agree with your acceptance of moves like 1.h4 and 1.a4. These are not "bad"--they are just not ambitious. After a fianchetto both of those openings are quite ok. Yes, you have squandered your advantage--but you have made the game equal--which still forces both players to play well to win.

Lev, I am confused by your objection that corr. chess requires days to make a move -- you have already claimed to have spent [b]years[/b] preparing this gambit, in order to play it OTB, and I think most people here (including OTB players) spend a lot of time analyzing their openings...I mean, that's what this place is for.

In a blitz game, you are probably still in book while your opponent looks to refute this by playing instantly.  Well, it's not surprising that you sometimes (or even often) win under these conditions.  Look, if my opponents played 12...Ke7, I could get used to playing this with White also.

As for this particular gambit, well, I'm not even sure that it would be too much trouble to meet OTB in a standard time control game.  (Blitz, well, you can win with anything if your opponent is weak, and many people do.)  If black has courage enough to play 8...Nxd4, Black's play is rather logical after this, and leads to a significant advantage.   

ArKheiN has already posted plently of analysis (6/28), but the point here is this: Black has so many ways to maintain the advantage that in the absence of a forcing line, Black will prevail just by trading down and cashing in the pawns.  I mean, it would be one thing if Black had to work hard to prove his advantage, but that doesn't really seem to be the case here.

(As for the place of computers in corr. chess, that is probably a debate for another thread, but I do agree that some aspect of sport is lost by the introduction of computers.  On the other hand, I use computers all the time in analysis.  Sure, you get people posting computer evaluations that can be easily busted, but using a computer is certainly helpful, if only because it increases the speed of the work.  Since USCF prohibits the use of chess engines in its corr. play, well, you can play your matches under its auspices.)